Research by Wilson suggests that examining the bases of one’s decision can lower satisfaction with the outcome of that decision. However, several investigators have found that using decision aids that cause people to consider the bases of their decisions leads to greater satisfaction with the decision. In the present study, high school students used either no decision aid, a pro/con list, or a computer program in making their actual college choice. Among students whose recall of the basis for their college choice was less accurate, the two aids resulted in significantly higher satisfaction with their decision when assessed after one college term compared to the satisfaction level of the control group. The authors suggest that use of a decision aid will heighten satisfaction with one’s choice if the aid promotes the identification of the appropriate bases on which the decision will be made.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aldag, R. J. , & Power, D. J. (1986). An empirical assessment of computer-assisted decision analysis. Decision Sciences, 17, 572-588.
2.
Bronner, F. , & de Hoog, R. (1983). Non-expert use of a computerized decision aid. In P. Humphreys, O. Svenson, & A. Vari (Eds.), Analysing and aiding decision processes (pp. 281-299). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
3.
Cicchetti, D. (1972). Extension of multiple-range tests to interaction tables in the analysis of variance: A rapid approximate solution. Psychological Bulletin, 77, 405-408.
4.
Galotti, K. M. (1995). A longitudinal study of real-life decision making: Choosing a college. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9, 459-484.
5.
Galotti, K. M. , & Kozberg, S. F. (1996). Adolescents’ experience of a life-framing decision. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 25, 3-16.
6.
Hixon, J. G. , & Swann, W. B., Jr. (1993). When does introspection bear fruit? Self-reflection, self-insight, and interpersonal choices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 35-43.
7.
Hodges, S. D. , & Wilson, T. D. (1993). Effects of analyzing reasons on attitude change: The moderating role of attitude accessibility. Social Cognition, 11, 353-366.
8.
John, R. S. , von Winterfeldt, D., & Edwards, W. (1983). The quality and user acceptance of multiattribute utility analysis performed by computer and analyst. In P. Humphreys, O. Svenson, & A. Vari (Eds.), Analysing and aiding decision processes (pp. 301-319). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
9.
Keeney, R. (1992). Value-focused thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
10.
Mann, L. (1972). Use of a “balance sheet” procedure to improve the quality of personal decision making: A field experiment with college applicants. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 2, 291-300.
11.
Mau, W. -C. , & Jepsen, D. A. (1992). Effects of computer-assisted instruction in using formal decision-making strategies to choose a college major. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 39, 185-192.
12.
Millar, M. G. , & Tesser, A. (1986). Effects of affective and cognitive focus on the attitude-behavior relation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 270-276.
13.
Millar, M. G. , & Tesser, A. (1989). The effects of affective-cognitive consistency and thought on the attitude-behavior relation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 189-202.
14.
Nagel, S. S. (1991). Decision-aiding software. New York: St. Martin’s.
15.
Nisbett, R. E. , & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231-259.
16.
Olson, D. L. , Moshkovich, H. M., Schellenberger, R., & Mechitov, A. (1995). Consistency and accuracy in decision aids: Experiments with four multiattribute systems. Decision Sciences, 26, 723-748.
17.
Paulsen, M. B. (1990). College choice: Understanding student enrollment behavior. Washington, DC: George Washington University Press.
18.
Sturman, M. C. , Hannon, J. M., & Milkovich, G. T. (1996). Computerized decision aids for flexible benefits decisions: The effects of an expert system and decision support system on employee intentions and satisfaction with benefits. Personnel Psychology, 49, 883-908.
19.
Timmermans, D. , & Vlek, C. (1994). An evaluation study of the effectiveness of multi-attribute decision support as a function of problem complexity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 59, 75-92.
20.
Wilson, T. D. , Dunn, D. S., Bybee, J. A., Hyman, D. B., & Rotondo, J. A. (1984). Effects of analyzing reasons on attitude-behavior consistency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 5-16.
21.
Wilson, T. D. , & Kraft, D. (1993). Why do I love thee? Effects of repeated introspections about a dating relationship on attitudes toward the relationship. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 409-418.
22.
Wilson, T. D. , Kraft, D., & Dunn, D. S. (1989). The disruptive effects of explaining attitudes: The moderating effect of knowledge about the attitude object. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 379-400.
23.
Wilson, T. D. , Lisle, D. J., Schooler, J., Hodges, S. D., Klaaren K. J., & LaFleur, S. J. (1993). Introspecting about reasons can reduce post-choice satisfaction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 331-339.
24.
Wilson, T. D. , & Schooler, J. (1991). Thinking too much: Introspection can reduce the quality of preferences and decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 181-192.
